An interesting console game came out recently. The game, called Fable II, has a simple but unusual premise - the morality of your choices shape who your character becomes. Each time you make a morally good choice, the purity of your character increases. Each morally bad choice makes your character more corrupt, to the point that you can eventually become a demon complete with horns and scars.
One of the problems with such a system should be pretty obvious - not everyone has the same perception of right and wrong. For example, eating meat in Fable's world causes you to become corrupt. Read a few reviews and you'll find that many people take issue with this. I think some people just don't like having to put up with slow healing to maintain their character's purity, but others are bothered by the implication that their real-world diet is immoral. To say there is a lack of universal consensus that eating meat is bad would be an understatement. In fact I once knew a family that considers vegetarianism to be immoral. I don't know how common that viewpoint is, but it's out there. I'm guessing people who feel that way would find Fable's morality engine to be corrupt.
But Fable is just a game, a creative work of fiction. The creators of the game can manipulate the game world and its rules however they want. But what about the real world? There are definitely benefits to a vegetarian diet. Would it be right to establish laws to impose a vegan lifestyle on the population at large? It certainly wouldn't be popular with most Americans, many would consider it an infringement of their rights, and some few would see it as a violation of their faith. Would the environmental and health benefits outweigh the resistance? Would it be right to take away people's right to believe and act as they choose if it benefits society and its citizens?
What if vegetarianism were not imposed by law but was promoted through other public means? What if it remained legal to eat meat, but schools were used to teach the "right" way to think about eating meat? Would it be ethical for our government to follow that path? Should schools teach the consequences of a meat-based diet and economy? Should schools go a step beyond that, teaching a specific stance on the morality of vegetarianism and the immorality of eating meat?
I belive that our schools are within their charter when they take on controversial topics, but as soon as they assert the "rightness" or "wrongness" of anything but the most universally accepted principles they've crossed the line. Same goes for other government programs. Same goes for our laws and their interpretation. Non-government organizations are in a different boat - they can and should promote viewpoints on issues of all types. But our government and its extensions needs to carefully avoid establishing or promoting an official state doctrine.
